dottedmint:You basically ripped me a new one pointing out that TUSC does NOT allow for "police actions"...that Congress is ONLY allowed to declare wars and fund wars but now you say a "police action" would be allowed by TUSC.

I've made my point. If there is no Congress, particularly because they were destroyed in an attack, the Constitution then allows for protecting "each of" the states "against invasion."

What you're not getting is that your scenario does not resemble the Iraq conflict. There is no Constitutional measure other than declaring war. That's our disconnect, and your example doesn't apply.

Iraq is not an 11th-hour emergency worthy of abandoning Constitutionally-required protocols.

Whidbey:"It really is the cherry on top of the wedding cake of impeachment."

I'm sorry to say but that cake is not going to be baked before Bush leaves office....

"He basically led us on a wild goose chase money pit with resources we should have been using to fight the real enemies that did attack us."

So you support us going anywhere that Al Quada is?

Would that include Iraq?

Al Quada IS in Iraq.

'They weren't in Iraq before we went there.'

Maybe....Maybe not...

They are there NOW.

BTW....

How exactly would you write a DoW against a terrorist group that has no borders, no country of their own, and no government of their own.

Let's say some government contacts us and points out that there is a large Al Quada camp in their country and they ask for our help because they don't have the military to deal with it. They have intel that says this camp is the base for a terrorist attack that is planned for the US.

How exactly do we "declare war" against that Al Quada camp?

I mean after all....

We couldn't use the military unless we have a DoW....Right?

Then of course....

IF Congress passed a DoW against this "camp" the members of this camp would know that we know about them and are planning on attacking them...

These terrorists would them simply vanish into the local population and we would no longer have a target.

dottedmint:How exactly would you write a DoW against a terrorist group that has no borders, no country of their own, and no government of their own

You don't write one. You work with the United Nations to solve the problem, as it is an international concern. You work it out with the countries where those alleged terrorists came from. You treat their acts as criminal under established international laws.

And this would be a legal protocol, because when we signed the treaty that chartered the United Nations, that act was covered by the Constitution. It is a binding treaty under Article VI.

But at least we would have a DoW...Right???

We would have had one with Iraq if Congress had done its job right. My guess is that they wouldn't have been able to get their act together because declaring a war is more of a serious commitment than just giving a mere nod to unlock the Treasury at the President's whim.

dottedmint:And if the UN refuses to take any steps to bring these terrorists to justice???

That's a chance you take. What the United States needs to learn is how to use its best and brightest to negotiate, not act like like peace is the goal while they've already decided upon military action in some Pentagon office.

As I said the government of that country contacts the US and asks for help

Then we take it to the UN Security Council and plead the case. That's what international cooperation is all about.

We signed the treaty that chartered the UN. This means that we will defend/enforce UN resolutions.

Not without consensus. That's my biggest gripe with the current situation. It caused an even bigger rift between us and our supposed allies and international colleagues.

They claim that this group plans on launching a terrorist attack against the US and they worry that this group will target that government next.

They have evidence that EVEN YOU would say was proof to back up their claims.

Then we're doing good so far. If the evidence is truly that strong, we bring our case to the Security Council and work to get a resolution as to what to do. It's only fair. The US is not the world, sure we're powerful, but we created the UN with the idea that all countries have representation.

They debate for months but never agree to take any actions.

I wouldn't be surprised. That's why we need to work on the ability to convince and negotiate, not coerce and manipulate as we've done.

This Al Quada camp continues to grow and plot against the US. They post a message on the internet saying that the US will be hit with an attack that will be greater than 9/11.How about if we had some sort of treaty with this government???

Again, if it's really that imminent of a threat, it would be obvious to everyone. It wouldn't be the political shroud like the resolutions regarding Iraq.

I don't prefer to think in terms of such do-or-die proportions. Attacks like 9/11 don't come out of nowhere. Despite our failure to put together the intelligence puzzle pieces, the clues were there for many years.

Likewise, I don't feel comfortable acting unilaterally. We've screwed things up too many times going it alone, or as a "leader" of a ragtag rogue "coalition of the willing."

We went over this. The proof wasn't there. It was not enough to invade, no where close. Your "opinion" based on one ancient grand jury indictment was not enough in the face of the mass amounts of evidence I showed you which proved otherwise. Interestingly enough thats when you changed the subject.

They are there now because we opened the country to them.

This Al Quada camp continues to grow and plot against the US. They post a message on the internet saying that the US will be hit with an attack that will be greater than 9/11.

Interesting scenario. What does that have to do with what happened with Iraq?

dottedmint:I've read through the WPA several times in debating this situation and I don't recall seeing what you are claiming.

Yeah that's my mistake actually. I misread the section 4 and 5 30 and 60 day sections as applying in all cases where war has not been declared, but at the end of the section it adds "unless with statutory authorization" for war.

I'll eat that one.

For the record I'm also ready to move onto a new topic but it seems this one has a lot of room for discussion. There wasn't really much answer to the articles I posted about the lack of evidence of al-qaeda in Iraq and the overall general lack of evidence for war, but I guess that's stale now. Feel free to start a topic, I've started a few of my own. More people joining in the discussion would help things along too...

I wasn't debating if they were or were not in Iraq before we went there.

I said that Al Quada IS in Iraq.

I meant now.

Do we no longer care what Al Quada does?

Whidbey:"Obviously, he's trying to get me to admit when it's "OK" for the US to "Damn the Torpedoes" and go cowboying into some country to kick some terrorist butt...;)"

I'm trying to figure out what you as President Whidbey would do in that situation.

A terrorist group attacks the US killing thousands of people.

We go to the UN asking that the UN bring these killers to justice.

The UN says NO.

The government of the country where these terrorists are operating asks the UN to help get these terrorists out of their country.

(The government of that country does NOT support these terrorists and do not want to be associated with them.)

The UN says NO.

This terrorist group warns that even more deadly attacks will come in the future.

The UN says "Oh well".

So President Whidbey tells the American people that there is nothing that this country can do to go after the people who planned and carried out an attack that killed thousands of Americans because the UN won't let us.....

I'm curious what President Cleveland-Steamer would tell the American people....

C-S:"Yeah that's my mistake actually. I misread the section 4 and 5 30 and 60 day sections as applying in all cases where war has not been declared, but at the end of the section it adds "unless with statutory authorization" for war."

Well considering how it is worded, it is easy to misread it.

Heck....

I wasn't sure if I had missed what you were claiming...

BUT.....

As I said before....

UNTIL the WPA is ruled UNconstitutional it stands as a valid legislative protocol to go to war.

dottedmint:So President Whidbey tells the American people that there is nothing that this country can do to go after the people who planned and carried out an attack that killed thousands of Americans because the UN won't let us.....

I swear if I had someone like you as my Chief of Staff I'd make you sell hot dogs outside the Senate Chambers. Mr. Worst Case Scenario. Maybe you'd blow your cool and sell out the Constitution and our commitment to the United Nations, but I don't have to.

Article IV, Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Article IV says that the government will protect each of them (the states) against invasion.

That doesn't say what President Whidbey will do if the UN refuses to take actions to bring the terrorists to justice.

I find your unwillingness to simply say what you would do very telling.

Your answer was...

"You work with the United Nations to solve the problem, as it is an international concern. You work it out with the countries where those alleged terrorists came from."

I'm trying to get you to tell me what you would do if the UN does NOT take action.

You do realize that the UN does NOT always take steps to enforce their own resolutions. They don't always take steps to prevent terrorism or other terrible acts. And as we have learned sometimes members of the UN are bribed not to allow certain things from happening.

IF the UN refuses to act what do you do???

BTW....

Leaders sometimes have to think about the Worst Case Scenario and think about what they will do in that case...

dottedmint:Leaders sometimes have to think about the Worst Case Scenario and think about what they will do in that case...

But your parable is more indicative of what our leaders have already decided to do all the time: screw the UN, doctor up the Constitution when "necessary" and continue to piss off the world and parade around like a hired gun.

You've tried to put my principles in a corner, and it isn't working. In the event of an attack, the Constitution grants our government to protect this country. Period.

I'm not seeing any vestige of that regarding current policy: it's empire-building, and it's a colossal failure.

Whidbey:"You've tried to put my principles in a corner, and it isn't working. In the event of an attack, the Constitution grants our government to protect this country."

I'm trying to get you to give me a straight forward answer.

I find it funny how much you are fighting giving me a simple straight forward answer.

I gave you an Worst Case Scenario and I asked you what you would do.

You said go to the UN.

I then asked what you would do if the UN refused to take any actions.

From here you have been dancing all over the place and have yet to give me a simple straight forward answer.

"But your parable is more indicative of what our leaders have already decided to do all the time: screw the UN, doctor up the Constitution when "necessary" and continue to piss off the world and parade around like a hired gun."

Fine....

Then simply tell me what you would do.

I had said...

So President Whidbey tells the American people that there is nothing that this country can do to go after the people who planned and carried out an attack that killed thousands of Americans because the UN won't let us.....

And your response was to tell me to re-read Article IV.

Article IV says that the government will protect each of them (the states) against invasion.

That doesn't tell me what actions you would take against a group that planned and carried out an attack that killed thousands of Americans.

IF you are going to say that TUSC does NOT (without the UNs blessing) allow you to go AFTER a group of terrorists that planned and carried out a deadly attack against this country then simply say so.

Obviously TUSC says the government will protect each of them (the states) against invasion.

But that does NOT tell me what you would do in response to an attack on this country.

This country was attacked...

Thousands of innocent Americans were killed....

The people who helped plan, fund and carry out this attack are still in a camp in some other country planning for another attack....

The UN refuses to take any actions...

Now what???

You either tell the American people that there is nothing that we can do because the UN won't allow it....

dottedmint:So President Whidbey tells the American people that there is nothing that this country can do to go after the people who planned and carried out an attack that killed thousands of Americans because the UN won't let us.....

I'm curious what President Cleveland-Steamer would tell the American people....

First off, I don't think anyone here is advocating that the UN should be allowed to stop the United States from taking action which has democratically and HONESTLY been determined to be the correct course of action.

Secondly, this scenario seems unrealistic. If the government of the country that this group is in wants this group out, and we want that group out, and this group just carried out a deadly terrorist attack that killed 10,000 people, I don't think the Security Council would stop it. This scenario isn't what happened in Iraq or Afghanistan.

But to answer this hypothetical, as President, I would dutifully carry out the democratic wishes of my country. If these wishes were military action, hopefully the Legislature would (constitutionally, however that may be) provide me with the ability to use my armed forces against the group or organization responsible.

The problem is that is not what's happening now. We entered a war based on false pretenses and deception to begin with, which means the democratic process was impossible as Congress and the people were not relying on all the facts, or even the correct facts. Four years later, we are faced with the depressing scenario of waging an unpopular war with a legislature that is incapable of carrying out the wishes of their constituents. The democratic process has been conspicuously absent from this the entire way, from the beginning to the end.

C-S:Secondly, this scenario seems unrealistic. If the government of the country that this group is in wants this group out, and we want that group out, and this group just carried out a deadly terrorist attack that killed 10,000 people, I don't think the Security Council would stop it.

You "don't think" the UN would stop it....

Maybe not but we know that members of the UN can be BRIBED to vote certain ways.....or more specifically against certain actions.

We've seen it happen...

But to answer this hypothetical, as President, I would dutifully carry out the democratic wishes of my country. If these wishes were military action, hopefully the Legislature would (constitutionally, however that may be) provide me with the ability to use my armed forces against the group or organization responsible.

According to Whidbey the ONLY way that the military could be used in this case would be to somehow "declare war" against this terrorist camp.

And I'm not sure how exactly you would "declare war" against a terrorist camp.

Unless you can come up with another way that TUSC would permit using our military to hunt down the terrorists that launched this attack.

"Four years later, we are faced with the depressing scenario of waging an unpopular war with a legislature that is incapable of carrying out the wishes of their constituents.

Actually......

The legislature is NOT incapable of carrying out the wishes of their constituents.

There is NOTHING that is preventing them from doing what their constituents want.

The question is what their constituents want....

I think you might be a bit mistaken as to what exactly their constituents want.

dottedmint:I've been trying to go past Iraq and figure out what is allowed in the future....

I really don't care to walk you through every little step I would do as President. I have a problem with your seeing the world as black and white, especially when it comes to whether we should use or abuse our military.

The simple fact is, what I would do isn't on trial here, it's what YOU would support.

Which is why Bush should be impeached, as an example to anyone who thinks he can just waltz into office with a ready-made instant "war." I really hope the pressure to impeach Bush gets crazy like American Idol in the next eight months, because if we don't, the next go-around won't be so easy. We are truly at that crossroads.

I asked you a nice simple question. It was so simple that the answer was either a "YES" or a "NO".

Yet you could not bring yourself to answer it.

WHY????

"I really don't care to walk you through every little step I would do as President."

I'm not asking for "every little step" that you would take.

I am trying to get you to answer what is and what is NOT allowed under TUSC.

"I have a problem with your seeing the world as black and white, especially when it comes to whether we should use or abuse our military."

Wait a minute....

I thought you were the one who had a "black and white" standard when it came to using the military.

"The simple fact is, what I would do isn't on trial here, it's what YOU would support."

I've been rather clear on my views of going to war.

I'm trying to get you to clear up your standards for going to war (or using the military).

"Which is why Bush should be impeached, as an example to anyone who thinks he can just waltz into office with a ready-made instant "war." I really hope the pressure to impeach Bush gets crazy like American Idol in the next eight months, because if we don't, the next go-around won't be so easy. We are truly at that crossroads."

Well...

As I have pointed out before it isn't going to happen.

You can keep wishing for it but I wouldn't suggest you hold your breath.

Since you just couldn't bring yourself to answer this very complicated question before I will re-post it for you.

HINT: The answer will either be a "YES" or a "NO".

Does "protect against invasion" mean that we can use the US military to go into another country and attack the terrorist camp that planned, funded and carried out the attack against us?

And this next one is a bit more complicated (more than a one word answer) but I'm sure you can do it...

"IF we wait until AFTER we are attacked to respond/retaliate how exactly does that "protect against invasion"???"

I really hope you will put your dancing shoes away and actually answer some questions...

Well you "think" they would, apparently. What's the difference? Opinions on irrelevant far-fetched hypotheticals aren't doing us much good.

According to Whidbey the ONLY way that the military could be used in this case would be to somehow "declare war" against this terrorist camp.

I'm not speaking for Whidbey, but I think all he's trying to say is that there is a process for how our country uses its armed forces, and we should stick to that process. Granted modern realities require a certain detachment from old formalities, but there is an underlying process which works and should still be used. Seems logical to me.

Also, have you considered alternatives to using force? Like, considering why terrorists have an easy time recruiting? Why the US is viewed so negatively around the world, and in particular the middle east? If this war is a war of winning hearts and minds, perhaps we should stop shooting their hearts and minds? If they're dead we can't exactly convince them of anything, and they're friends and family probably won't like us very much.

The legislature is NOT incapable of carrying out the wishes of their constituents.

There is NOTHING that is preventing them from doing what their constituents want.

Sorry but weren't you arguing a few weeks ago that Congress can't pull the troops out?

They can cut the funding, but they are reluctant to do so because they are more worried about getting raked by the Republican spin machine than actually doing what they need to do.

I think you might be a bit mistaken as to what exactly their constituents want.

Well here in California, their constituents want out.

Actually, the majority of Americans want the troops out, whether its now or later. The majority of Americans clearly favor some sort of withdrawal. That's pretty obvious I would think.

"Are you making up hypotheticals which serve your own arguments and have no relevance to the current situation?"

As I told Whdibey I'm NOT debating the current situation.

I'm trying to debate how/when this country can go to war or use the military.

"Well you "think" they would, apparently. What's the difference? Opinions on irrelevant far-fetched hypotheticals aren't doing us much good."

I don't know what the UN would or would not do.

I want to know what YOU as President WOULD DO if the UN refused to take any actions.

"I'm not speaking for Whidbey, but I think all he's trying to say is that there is a process for how our country uses its armed forces, and we should stick to that process. Granted modern realities require a certain detachment from old formalities, but there is an underlying process which works and should still be used. Seems logical to me."

Sure....

Seems logical....

That is of course if EITHER OF YOU would actually try to explain what YOU would do if the UN refused to take action.

It's a rather simple request...

"Also, have you considered alternatives to using force? Like, considering why terrorists have an easy time recruiting? .........."

I'm sorry but when there is a large camp of people who would love to see you me and every other person who visits Fark DEAD I don't care too much why they hate us.....

They want us dead and I'm not going to go and ask them why...

"Sorry but weren't you arguing a few weeks ago that Congress can't pull the troops out? They can cut the funding, but they are reluctant to do so because they are more worried about getting raked by the Republican spin machine than actually doing what they need to do."

Um...yes.

Congress does not have the authority to pull the troops out.

They can cut off funding but they are unwilling to do that.

Nothing is actually stopping them....Except for themselves...

"The majority of Americans clearly favor some sort of withdrawal."

IF this is true then Congress should not worry about being (how did you put it?) "raked by the Republican spin machine" because you can't get in trouble for giving the people what they want.

Now....

Are EITHER OF YOU actually going to tell me what you (as President) would do if the UN refused to take action against a terrorist camp that planned, funded and carried out a massive attack against this country?

dottedmint:Does "protect against invasion" mean that we can use the US military to go into another country and attack the terrorist camp that planned, funded and carried out the attack against us?

It would depend on the circumstances. How the US attacked Afghanistan to get Bin Laden would fall under this kind of thinking, but even so, it's not our right to slam into some country to assassinate some rich deluded mastermind like Bin Laden--not without some kind of international consensus.

I think the problem between our philosophies is that you view the United States as above international law, and I see how we're really just one country amongst others.

Yes, I believe the Constitution allows for a strike against a known faction in case of invasion, which can be reasoned as attack without actual troops crossing borders.

Otherwise, if the threat of a group is not imminently dangerous, it's the job of the international community to set it right.

My position is that we can make the world work without there always being a threat of a preemptive strike to make peace. And whatever plan that entails will be based on the US Constitution when applying to this country and elsewhere. No warmongering, no sidestepping Constitutional positions.

I hope that's good enough an answer for you. It's certainly better than "I don't know" or "I don't recall" as is the biggest retro-trend these days.

Whidbey:"How the US attacked Afghanistan to get Bin Laden would fall under this kind of thinking, but even so, it's not our right to slam into some country to assassinate some rich deluded mastermind like Bin Laden--not without some kind of international consensus."

So we can't even go after Bin Laden without the UNs OK???

"I think the problem between our philosophies is that you view the United States as above international law, and I see how we're really just one country amongst others."

So international law prevents this country from hunting down international terrorists...

Hmmm....

Nice...

I suppose they do after all deserve to be read their "rights" first....

"Yes, I believe the Constitution allows for a strike against a known faction in case of invasion, which can be reasoned as attack without actual troops crossing borders."

So.?.?.?.?

The Constitution allows for a strike against a "known faction" in case of invasion without actual troops crossing the borders???

Sounds like a pre-emptive strike to me????

"Otherwise, if the threat of a group is not imminently dangerous, it's the job of the international community to set it right."

And a camp that already launched one very deadly attack against this country would be called "imminently dangerous"???

Right???

And this would mean that we could use our military to hunt them down.

Right???

And?!?!?!

Would that be called a "police action"???

We didn't "declare war" against that camp.

We used the "protect against invasion" clause to authorize a military attack.

"And whatever plan that entails will be based on the US Constitution when applying to this country and elsewhere. No warmongering, no sidestepping Constitutional positions."

So where in TUSC does it say we can use the military when there is a threat that is "imminently dangerous"???

TUSC ONLY says that the government will protect us "against invasion".

It does not say that the risk of invasion must be "imminent".

Let me see if I have this right.....

IF we have a threat that is "imminently dangerous" TUSC allows for us to take pre-emptive military action against that threat....

I wasn't happy about the way the US gathered its forces like an angry bees' nest and attacked Afghanistan, no. I don't see what it solved, even if they'd captured or killed Bin Laden. It was a masturbatory show of force. But we can argue whether it was covered under Article IV: the US protected its states in the event of attack. I detest what we did because it was once again, SO ill-thought out, but at least it wasn't an offensive.

I suppose they do after all deserve to be read their "rights" first...

You're so cynical. You refuse to believe that the rights we enjoy in this country apply to everybody. Yes, whatever action we take should be subject to a due process, such as a Security Council resolution where all parties are in agreement. No "Coalition of the Willing" for a pointless military exercise when there is no imminent danger.

Would that be called a "police action"??? We didn't "declare war" against that camp.

We would be defending ourselves, a completely different scenario than what we've been discussing. No, it would not be a police action. And no, we did not declare war against a terrorist body made up of individuals from other countries--it is ultimately up to international law and the sovereign laws of those countries to punish the criminal actions.

The [TUSC] does not say that the risk of invasion must be "imminent".

No, we're talking about an actual invasion, an attack. It would already have had to have happened, and we would be responding to it.

Who determines if the threat is "imminently dangerous" or not?

It would have to be a combination of intelligence and public action seen by the threat in question. But unless this country is attacked, we do not act with force.

dottedmint:They want us dead and I'm not going to go and ask them why..

This to me is a huge problem and is symptomatic of the larger dilemma we are facing, i.e. the endless cycle of violence which the war on terror has become. We are fighting terror with terror. You cannot "kill" or "defeat" terrorism with guns and violence, unless you are willing to go to extraordinary lengths of totalitarianism, the same way you cannot "defeat" drugs or poverty like it's some kind of enemy that can be eliminated on the battlefield.

Calling these things "wars" is the ultimate Orwellian language cleanser, dumbing down the lexicon and making complex and nuanced issues merely "good guy vs bad guy", black and white issues.

Why are you uninterested in the political underpinnings and history of the middle east which forms the foundation for the animosity our country faces? Do you think a better solution is simply killing "them" and whatever civilians happen to be within a 500 yard radius?

Secondly who are "they?" Aren't you curious?

Why does your average poverty stricken teenager in Palestine actually consider strapping a bomb to his chest reasonable? What on earth could possibly incite a crowd to burn and then hang the corpses of American Contractors on a bridge? Something is terribly, horribly wrong here.

Isn't this a valid question? It's not just "because he's a crazy muslim" as I'm sure half this country and 90% of Fark likes to think. Why do crazy megalomaniacs like Bin Laden and Al Sadr, or violent organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas have such an easy time recruiting? By answering these questions and removing the motivations and reasons which make people turn to Islamic fundamentalism and hatred of America (and Israel), you pull out the rug from underneath them, so to speak. IMHO this is the correct route, rather than fighting fire with fire. Unfortunately it's also complicated and hard to sell in a one liner on Fox News, so it'll never happen. Such is the sad state of affairs of American politics these days.

I want to know what YOU as President WOULD DO if the UN refused to take any actions.

I'm not going to continue this "what would you do" discussion. I answered you already. If Congress instructed me to use force, against whomever they deemed appropriate (not me, not carte blanche "whoever was responsible, you decide to pull the trigger" language) then I would do it regardless of what the UN said. Failure to do so would arguably be a violation of my oath of office.

However, I would prefer to approach the bigger picture of terrorism from a different perspective, i.e. not the use of force but rather a frank look at our foreign policy and what kind of actions we are taking to the extent that a madman in the desert can inspire someone to commit horrible atrocities against innocent people.

C-S:"I'm not going to continue this "what would you do" discussion. I answered you already. If Congress instructed me to use force, against whomever they deemed appropriate (not me, not carte blanche "whoever was responsible, you decide to pull the trigger" language) then I would do it regardless of what the UN said. Failure to do so would arguably be a violation of my oath of office."

Sorry C-S...

I somehow missed this part...

I had to go back and look...

"If these wishes were military action, hopefully the Legislature would (constitutionally, however that may be) provide me with the ability to use my armed forces against the group or organization responsible."

Thank you....

IF the UN refused to take actions against these terrorists you would be willing to take actions.

Obviously this government's leaders: both the President and key members of Congress.

And I find it interesting that you feel military action cannot be taken until AFTER we are attacked.

Unless we have some special information that our supposed enemy is planning an attack and it is about to be carried out, there is no justification for a pre-emptive strike.

AFTER we are attacked the threat is no longer "imminently dangerous".

There is no other possibility: either we're attacked, or we play a political waiting game. I do not see an honest use of Article IV unless there is a threat of invasion or attack. Sabre-rattling and Bin Laden-style propaganda on videotapes does not constitute a threat worthy of a military strike by the United States--it demands international attention.

And if the SC refuses to take action does TUSC allow us to take action by ourselves?

No, it does not. Not if there is enough doubt to cause a no vote on the UN resolution. Iraq is a perfect example: the US believed, despite the lack of evidence, that Iraq was a threat to the United States, the Security Council did not see the evidence.

If we were to break with the Security Council there had better be a damned good reason other than the kind of easy-to-see-through political BS Bush was trying to sell.

Don't ask me again: If there is a threat, and a 100% chance of the US being attacked, then our actions to retaliate are covered. Otherwise, it is up to us to work with the international community to bring criminals to justice.

Does TUSC allow the US to use military force to go after the rest of the terrorist camp?

IF there is "very strong evidence," yes we can continue our operation to retaliate while working with the UN to bring the criminals to justice.

But again, this is a worst case scenario. If there were really a serious threat as you described, we wouldn't be going at this alone, and whatever proposed force would have unanimous Security Council approval.

Obviously, I sense your fear that the US military will become obsolete if we don't stick to our guns (so to speak) and use them often to stay on top as THE world power. Welcome to 1945 where the progressive notion was born of considering the United States a country alongside others to further the goal of peace. That goal has not died despite the warmongering attitudes from some of our leaders in the past 57 years.

What's on trial is what YOU would support, dottedmint, and I don't appreciate your trying to twist me into accepting a course of action like the Bush administration has gotten away with these past few years.

My intentions are honorable and I stick to my principles, your are malleable depending on what "what-if" scenario you conjure to "justify" bringing out the big guns.

In other words, I stand for peace, you stand for war. That's our biggest disconnect.

Cleveland-Steamer:However, I would prefer to approach the bigger picture of terrorism from a different perspective, i.e. not the use of force but rather a frank look at our foreign policy and what kind of actions we are taking to the extent that a madman in the desert can inspire someone to commit horrible atrocities against innocent people.

QFT. I would urge you to read this, dottedmint when you ask yourself why I take issue at your suggestions for military action.

What we do is chew on a topic for several hours or days, and anything goes. International politics is certainly an optimal forum goal.

Just try to keep things cool and make an effort to understand the other person's point of view. I'd like to see more people in here I don't agree with speaking up than preacher-to-the-choir type stuff. Or Farkers who set a good debating example, no matter the ideology. Whoops, kinda set the bar a little high with that one...;)

Whidbey:"Obviously this government's leaders: both the President and key members of Congress."

HEY.....

Something we agree on.

The problem is that what President Whidbey thinks is "imminently dangerous" just might not be what President Dottedmint thinks is "imminently dangerous" since that standard depends on individual views/opinions.

Here you start getting confusing again...

"Unless we have some special information that our supposed enemy is planning an attack and it is about to be carried out, there is no justification for a pre-emptive strike."

Then you say.?.?.?.?

"There is no other possibility: either we're attacked, or we play a political waiting game. I do not see an honest use of Article IV unless there is a threat of invasion or attack. ..."

So ....

IF I'm reading your comment correctly (I admit I might not be)....

IF it is determined that there is a threat that is "imminently dangerous" we ARE ??? authorized to launch a pre-emptive attack?

"Sabre-rattling and Bin Laden-style propaganda on videotapes does not constitute a threat worthy of a military strike by the United States--it demands international attention."

To a certain point I agree with you.

Shocking....eh????

However....do you doubt for a second that Bin Laden and his followers would be more than happy to carry a NUKE into downtown Chicago???

I personally don't like the idea of waiting until after they have a nuke...

"No, it does not. Not if there is enough doubt to cause a no vote on the UN resolution. Iraq is a perfect example: "

Here you go back to the 'we can't do anything without the UNs permission' stance...

"If we were to break with the Security Council there had better be a damned good reason..."

Right....

Like "both the President and key members of Congress" determining that the threat is "imminently dangerous"...

Right???

"If there is a threat, and a 100% chance of the US being attacked, then our actions to retaliate are covered."

IF you are saying "pre-emptively" I agree with you.

IF you are saying we can retaliate ONLY AFTER we are attacked I think you are nuts.

"If there were really a serious threat as you described, we wouldn't be going at this alone, and whatever proposed force would have unanimous Security Council approval."

You have more faith in the UN than I do...

"Obviously, I sense your fear that the US military will become obsolete if we don't stick to our guns (so to speak) and use them often to stay on top as THE world power."

Well I suppose life on this planet would be so much better if Iran was the world super power and had nukes and other wmds...

Right...

"Welcome to 1945 where the progressive notion was born of considering the United States a country alongside others to further the goal of peace. That goal has not died despite the warmongering attitudes from some of our leaders in the past 57 years."

Again....

You faith in the UN is alot stronger than mine...

"What's on trial is what YOU would support, dottedmint,..."

Funny....

What I support is on trial but what you support isn't.

I guess this way you never have to worry about losing a debate now do you Whidbey???

"....and I don't appreciate your trying to twist me into accepting a course of action like the Bush administration has gotten away with these past few years."

dottedmint:he problem is that what President Whidbey thinks is "imminently dangerous" just might not be what President Dottedmint thinks is "imminently dangerous" since that standard depends on individual views/opinions.

Except I don't second-guess the Constitution and use it as my guide. That's a big difference. My goal is to avoid war, you don't seem to have that standard to live up to. Another big difference.

The third, of course, is that you have zero-to-no respect for a world body like the United Nation's consensus, and it is to be ignored when convenient.

However....do you doubt for a second that Bin Laden and his followers would be more than happy to carry a NUKE into downtown Chicago???

Ain't happening. Another "what-if" scenario. We don't even know if Bin Laden is alive or for that matter how powerful Al Qaeda is. They're more like a legend than a documentable threat.

Well I suppose life on this planet would be so much better if Iran was the world super power and had nukes and other wmds...

You not only have an annoying tendency to jump to paranoid conclusions, you think it's only going to be up to the United States to take care of every fire drill on this planet and that the international community is incapable of solving its own regional problems.

What I support is on trial but what you support isn't.

Not even. What I support is expected of a President sworn to uphold the Constitution. You support some very questionable political behaviors, such as instant military capability whether a threat is justified, or whether that action is a Constitutionally and internationally acceptable means.

New topic???

I don't think you've learned this one. I still sense a very smug sense of what you feel this government is allowed to do, despite the opposing views we've shown you over and over.

Hi. Got tired of lurking. Glad to see you guys have kept it civil, except for this last post, which seems to be leaning toward condescension, but that's to be expected.

So, tell me how exactly the U.N. has proven to be effective at anything? (Don't say sanctions, either. That's just a joke.) Tell me why you would trust them to solve any problem? Tell me why you would think they would actually do anything about any world problem besides giving the dictator a stern look or a public rebuke, which they can't even get that right.

Whidbey, I love how you like to downplay the danger that Islamists (note that I didn't say "Islam") pose to the rest of the world. It shows me that you really don't pay attention to what is going on in the media. I don't know if you've noticed, but Islamists don't negotiate. They don't talk when they get offended. They blow crap up, kill people and cause just general chaos. Please show me one instance where the radical side of Islam has attempted to negotiate to get its way. If you've ever done any kind of research on who UBL's mentors were/are and the goals of Hamas and other similar-minded terror organizations, you would know better than to think that negotiation with them is an option. The best we can do is to curtail their recruiting. That's another topic for discussion...

I've long since quit trying to argue about the reasons for the Iraq war, intelligence failures and such. It's pointless to do so, there's nothing we can do about the past now, and even if I had actual evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda had even a semblance of a relationship before the war, you would choose not to believe me. Consider, though, that Bill Clinton considered a war with Iraq, but didn't have enough votes in the GOP-led Congress to get it, which is why he didn't declare it. (Politics sucks, huh?) Instead, he launched non-U.N.-approved missile strikes.

As dottedmint said, al-Qaeda is there now. There is proof of that. Everyday. On every news website. Everywhere. I can't go back and read everything that has been said, but I imaging that everyone arguing with dottedmint probably thinks we're losing in Iraq. If so, to whom are we losing?

Matt M.:Whidbey, I love how you like to downplay the danger that Islamists (note that I didn't say "Islam") pose to the rest of the world.

It's because I don't believe there's a threat. That's right. I think this government has taken one incident that a handful of extremists pulled off (9/11) and have successfully woven together a propaganda campaign to keep this country in a heightened "yellow alert" type state. Religion has little to do with anything, that's another facet of the propaganda."Islamists" could be anyone who professes that faith.

I don't know if you've noticed, but Islamists don't negotiate. They don't talk when they get offended. They blow crap up, kill people and cause just general chaos.

With all due respect, these are stereotypes. And I didn't see the US negotiating when we attacked Afghanistan. Funny how that kind of behavior is "OK" when it's us doing the blowing up and killing...;)

Please show me one instance where the radical side of Islam has attempted to negotiate to get its way.

Well, obviously you've got your mind set that these people are animals and are incapable of rational thought. It's going to be pretty hard to change that mindset. But at the heart of it, these are people who are oppressed and desperate. Their philosophy against us didn't come out of nowhere.

So, tell me how exactly the U.N. has proven to be effective at anything? (Don't say sanctions, either. That's just a joke.) Tell me why you would trust them to solve any problem? Tell me why you would think they would actually do anything about any world problem besides giving the dictator a stern look or a public rebuke, which they can't even get that right.

I would submit that the "do-nothing" nature of the UN is exactly what this country wants so we can call the shots. Until the United States takes a role that isn't warmongering and militarily aggressive and uses its influence for peace, I don't think we're going to see a dynamic UN. But we no longer have the luxury of being such a warmongering nation anymore. 9/11 was a wake-up call for own political behaviors as well, and at this point I'm skeptical we're going to find leaders committed to this truth.

dottedmint: he problem is that what President Whidbey thinks is "imminently dangerous" just might not be what President Dottedmint thinks is "imminently dangerous" since that standard depends on individual views/opinions.

Whidbey:"Except I don't second-guess the Constitution and use it as my guide.

What?!?!?!

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say.

You are saying that I "second-guess the Constitution" but also somehow "use it as my guide"???

I don't see how the two can be linked.

I think the problem is that you and I are interpretting what TUSC says differently.

I'M going by what it ACTUALLY SAYS.

You are setting standards that are not spelled out in it.

TUSC says that the government will "protect against invasion".

That's all.

You have added a standard that TUSC does NOT spell out.

And as I said before two different Presidents would probably have two different standards for what is "imminently dangerous".

"That's a big difference. My goal is to avoid war, you don't seem to have that standard to live up to. Another big difference."

Interesting but wrong.

I would love to always "avoid war" but I am not so blind as to think we will never need to use the military.

I realize that there are people in this world who want to see this country destroyed and as many innocent americans dead as possible.

"The third, of course, is that you have zero-to-no respect for a world body like the United Nation's consensus, and it is to be ignored when convenient."

And I am not (again) so blind as to think that the UN is perfect and is willing or able to deal with all of the 'bad guys' that are out there.

"Ain't happening. Another "what-if" scenario. We don't even know if Bin Laden is alive or for that matter how powerful Al Qaeda is. They're more like a legend than a documentable threat."

"A LEGEND"??????

I hope you are kidding ... or at least ... didn't mean it to sound the way that it does.

Al Qaeda has taken credit for the death of some of our soldiers in Iraq.

Al Qaeda (of course) launched a massive attack on this country that killed all sorts of innocent people.

And terrorists in general have killed thousands of innocent people all over the world.

Al Qaeda isn't the only gang in the hood...

BTW....

When Iran gets nukes what exactly would keep them from passing one on to Al Qaeda???

The UN???

"You not only have an annoying tendency to jump to paranoid conclusions,..."

LOL....

And you have an annoying tendency to want to keep your head in the sand and say "Ain't happening." as if we live in some nice safe world.

"...you think it's only going to be up to the United States to take care of every fire drill on this planet and that the international community is incapable of solving its own regional problems.

Does the UN have a good track record of ending or preventing regional 'fires'???

IF it did, would the mid-east be the mess that it is???

"Not even. What I support is expected of a President sworn to uphold the Constitution. You support some very questionable political behaviors, such as instant military capability whether a threat is justified, or whether that action is a Constitutionally and internationally acceptable means."

No.

What I am putting on trial is your interpretation of what TUSC says.

As I have said before you are the one who is setting standards that are NOT spelled out in TUSC.

"I don't think you've learned this one. I still sense a very smug sense of what you feel this government is allowed to do, despite the opposing views we've shown you over and over."

dottedmint:You are saying that I "second-guess the Constitution" but also somehow "use it as my guide"???

Sorry. Grammatical error on my part.

I'M going by what it ACTUALLY SAYS.

No, you believe that Congress can conjure up things like "war resolutions" instead of taking the steps to declare war. We've been over this way too many times. War resolutions are not "spelled out" and the invoking of the Elastic Clause is to be used when absolutely necessary. Otherwise nothing should be changed.

You are setting standards that are not spelled out in it.

I've only referred to specific passages to back up any hypothetical actions.

And as I said before two different Presidents would probably have two different standards for what is "imminently dangerous".

But ultimately your exercise was an attempt to defend why Bush did what he did in 2003. There was nothing "imminent" nor "dangerous" about Iraq to warrant those protections. The intelligence was faulty, and his interpretation was either inept or he just plain ignored it.

And terrorists in general have killed thousands of innocent people all over the world.

I see. So you're lumping all terrorism in with Al Qaeda? Nor is it our mission to address each and every bout of "terrorism."

Al Qaeda has taken credit for the death of some of our soldiers in Iraq.

Go figure. No one wants us there. Our actions lured them there. So what? It doesn't mean they are any more or a threat or that they are more organized to attack the US again. You also appear to have zero-to-little trust in our ability to procure intelligence.

Al Qaeda (of course) launched a massive attack on this country that killed all sorts of innocent people.

That is the ONLY thing we've got on them. It's hardly worth the waste of resources in the War on Terror and the two operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

And you have an annoying tendency to want to keep your head in the sand and say "Ain't happening." as if we live in some nice safe world.

I don't trust the BS our government has been shoveling us the past five years. I don't trust Bush and I sure as sh*t don't trust Cheney. To me, they are the real enemies to the United States.

Does the UN have a good track record of ending or preventing regional 'fires'???

I don't know, I can't think of a single instance where the US worked like hell to make anything happen by international consensus. Not in recent times.

IF it did, would the mid-east be the mess that it is???

Our meddling in the Middle East is more to blame than any United Nations efforts, namely covert CIA operations where we had many of our present "enemies" on US payroll. Bin Laden is a good example.

ROLMAO...

I was thinking the same thing of you....

Then you're not being honest. There's nothing smug about what I believe this government is allowed to do: I know. You're the one taking liberties.

Nov. 4, 1979 Fifty-two American citizens were taken hostage when militant students of radical Islam stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

April 18, 1983 A suicide bomber in a pickup truck loaded with explosives rammed into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. Sixty-three people were killed.

Oct. 23, 1983 A suicide bomber detonated a truck full of explosives at a U.S. Marine barracks located at Beirut International Airport; 241 U.S. Marines were killed and more than 100 others wounded.

Dec. 12, 1983 The American embassy in Kuwait was bombed in a series of attacks whose targets also included the French embassy, the control tower at the airport, the country's main oil refinery, and a residential area for employees of the American corporation Raytheon.

March 16, 1984 CIA Station Chief William Buckley kidnapped. Buckley was the fourth person to be kidnapped by militant Islamic extremists in Lebanon. Eventually, 30 Westerners would be kidnapped during the 10-year-long Lebanese hostage-taking crisis (1982-1992).

Sept. 20, 1984 In Aukar, northeast of Beirut, a truck bomb exploded outside the U.S. Embassy annex killing 24 people, two of whom were U.S. military personnel. According to the U.S. State Department's 1999 report on terrorist organizations, elements of Hezbollah are "known or suspected to have been involved" in the bombing.

Dec. 3, 1984 Kuwait Airways Flight 221, on its way from Kuwait to Pakistan, was hijacked and diverted to Tehran. The hijackers demanded the release of the Kuwait 17. When the demand wasn't met, the hijackers killed two American officials from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

June 14, 1985 TWA Flight 847 was hijacked en route from Athens to Rome and forced to land in Beirut, Lebanon, where the hijackers held the plane for 17 days. When these demands weren't met, hostage Robert Dean Stethem, a U.S. Navy diver, was shot and his body dumped on the airport tarmac. U.S. sources implicated Hezbollah.

October 1985 - January 1986 On Oct. 7, 1985, off the coast of Egypt, four gunmen hijacked the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro and demanded the release of Palestinian prisoners in Egypt, Italy, and elsewhere. When the demands weren't met, they killed Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old disabled American tourist.

April 5, 1986 An American soldier was killed when a bomb was detonated at La Belle, a discotheque in West Berlin known to be popular with off-duty U.S. servicemen.

December 21, 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 from London to New York exploded over the small town of Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 people on board were killed, along with 11 on the ground.

February 26, 1993 a car bomb was detonated by Arab terrorists in the underground parking garage below Tower One of the World Trade Center in New York City. The 1,500-lb (680 kg) urea nitrate-fuel oil device killed six and injured 1,042 people. It was intended to devastate the foundation of the North Tower, causing it to collapse onto its twin.

October 12, 2000 The USS Cole, while it was harbored in the Yemeni port of Adena had a small craft approach the port side of the destroyer, and an explosion occurred, putting a 35-by-36-foot gash in the ship's port side. 17 sailors dead.

September 11, 2001 attacks. 2,973 people died; another 24 are missing and presumed dead.

October 12, 2002 in the tourist district of Kuta on the Indonesian island of Bali. The attack was the deadliest act of terrorism in the history of Indonesia, killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals (including 88 Australians), and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 were injured.

March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombings consisted of a series of coordinated bombings against the Cercanías (commuter train) system of Madrid, Spain on the morning of 11 March 2004, killing 191 people and wounding 2,050

dottedmint: You are saying that I "second-guess the Constitution" but also somehow "use it as my guide"???

Whidbey:"Sorry. Grammatical error on my part."

Honest mistake....

"No, you believe that Congress can conjure up things like "war resolutions" instead of taking the steps to declare war. We've been over this way too many times."

Yes we have and I pointed out how Article 1, Section 8. says,

The Congress shall have power ... To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

and this gave Congress the power to create The War Powers Act.

"I've only referred to specific passages to back up any hypothetical actions."

Nice try.

NOWHERE in TUSC does it say anything about a threat being "imminently dangerous".

YOU are the one who is adding stuff to TUSC.

NOT ME.

"But ultimately your exercise was an attempt to defend why Bush did what he did in 2003. There was nothing "imminent" nor "dangerous" about Iraq to warrant those protections. The intelligence was faulty, and his interpretation was either inept or he just plain ignored it."

As I said some time ago I was attempting to go past Iraq but since you bring it up again.

You told me that IF both the President and key members of Congress determined that the threat was "imminently dangerous" we could take action against that threat.

"That (9/11) is the ONLY thing we've got on them. It's hardly worth the waste of resources in the War on Terror and the two operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Nice handpicked list there. But if you want to continue to buy into the propaganda, fine. Most of your list is from 20 years ago. And obviously I need to remind you that the one thing we have Al Qaeda on is 9/11, and we showed our rashness and ultimate failure there. It's time to change tactic and stop listening to paranoid warmongers that also happen to elect.

But the truth is no terrorist group is enough of a threat to the United States to warrant any military intervention. Period.

What this country needs to do is make amends and change its ways. Otherwise, there's going to be some serious destruction.